One detail that stood out during the Congressional debate over the Shiavo bill was an almost complete inability to pronounce Shiavo's last name correctly. Most of the Congressmen pronounced her name She-i-vo, while the correct pronunciation is Shai-vo. This doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it does lead one to wonder about the Congressmen who were taking such constitutionally questionable steps for a person whose name they couldn't even pronounce.

By the time of Congress's involvement, Shiavo's name was nearly a household name. There had been a series of cases involving the family that had gained national attention over the years, yet there were Congressmen giving speeches asserting positive diagnosis of Shiavo's condition (and were near to giving odds on her readiness to spring from the bed) who were unable to pronounce her name.

You would assume that a Congressman would take the time to evaluate a case to have a full understand of the situation, especially in the case of legislation that may raise serious constitutional questions. It would also be fair to assume that through said study (in this case, dozens of court cases, the 14 years of medical records and the numerous journalistic investigations) one would have come across the proper pronunciation of the name of the subject.

While that is not a damning evaluation of individual legislators' understanding, it does raise questions as to the forethought given to such a radical piece of legislation. If the Congress is going to craft legislation that raises so many questions regarding federalism, religion, privacy, custody and proper medial treatment, you would hope that your legislator would take the time to adequately familiarize himself with the relevant information.

That said, when such questionable legislation is created in the name of one individual, you should have the assurance that your Congressman knows the name the person for whom they are working.

- Murphy

The Post-Dispatch ran a hard-hitting editorial this past Sunday. Titled, The Shameless 20, the piece takes the Republican Senators who voted to cut Medicaid to task.

The article hit on all the salient facts surrounding the Medicaid issue. They address the fact that Medicaid makes health care more efficient by providing help earlier, rather than waiting for someone to show up in an emergency room. Preventative care saves everyone money by keeping costs down.

It also address the ignorant assumption that Medicaid only serves those who are too lazy to help themselves. In an age when more and more people find themselves working low-wage jobs with no benefits who can't afford the hundreds of dollars a month that insurance can cost, using the government's resources to help offset some of those costs is the ethical thing to do. Medicaid also helps those who are retired or disabled and are unable to go out and find other means to cover expenses whose growth consumes more and more of their fixed income.

They also pointed out the irony that 17 of the 20 Senators who voted for the cuts receive benefits paid for by the taxpayers.
Politicians have come under fire in the past for receiving medical benefits and they have argued, correctly, that their government responsibilities may not always allow them to earn much when the legislature is not in session and since they make so little, they need the benefits they might not otherwise be able to afford. But how can they also argue that it is wrong to use the government's resources to help the other Missourians who can't cover the rising cost of health care?

One final point they make, which is somewhat overlooked, is that the state investment in Medicaid is reinforced by federal funds. These funds not only represent heath care services, but it is also money going into Missouri's economy. The hospitals, clinics, doctors and nurses who provide heath care, as well as all the suppliers who support them benefit, and as a result Missouri's economy benefits. They all pay taxes and spend their money in their community. Cutting $250 million in state funds results in an overall loss of $737.4 million in investment. That is even before the investment multiplier kicks in. There is also an economic impact due to lack of insurance. It means more work hours lost as well as higher treatment costs that may eventually be passed onto the consumers (the people of Missouri). Lost productivity and higher costs will stifle business growth faster than any lawsuit.

Certainly there are ways to try and reduce the costs of heath care, but those require time and effort. Knee-jerk cuts to Medicare are bad for Missouri, no matter how you look at it.

- Murphy

The owner of that sweet St. Louis landmark, Crown Candy Kitchen died this past Sunday of complications due to Parkinson's disease. The Post-Dispatch has a good story on the history of that timeless shop and the family that owned it.

I remember many a night trekking up to Crown Candy from South City. My father or one of the other parents form the neighborhood would drive us up after school functions. It didn't matter if it was a game or one of the mandatory school band concerts. I think my father really enjoyed going and he used us as an excuse. Now that I think of it, he was always the one to suggest Crown Candy as a post-event stop.

I even know a few people who still make it there about once a week for a sundae or a split.

- Murphy

The Post-Dispatch endorsed Democrat Rick Johnson in the race for the 22nd District Senate Seat.

This race has generated a lot of interest. Both the state and national parties are watching to see how this race plays out. The 22nd District isn't an essential seat, in that it won't change the Republican control of the state government. However, the 22nd is a Democratic stronghold and the Republicans are going to see if their success in other parts of the state will help them break loose a just enough voters in the 22nd.

Johnson is the presumed winner in this race, but the interesting aspect is what effect Republican Bill Alter's campaign will have. Unless the Republicans make a good showing in this race, it may represent a breakwater for the Republicans in Missouri. They may have scooped up all the territory they can reach.

If the Republicans do come out strong, it may lead to more high-finance campaigns targeting any and every Democrat in the state. It is unusual to see State Senate candidates use television, like Alter has done, but the Republicans obviously feel that it can make the difference.

Yet their focus on high-profile, high-expense advertising may be undercut by Johnson's focus on door knocking and hand-shaking. Johnson has a large number of volunteers out canvassing the county and he has focused on personal contact.

Reports from the field have indicated that, due to the fact that both candidates use their naval service in their bio, some voters think Johnson has his own t.v. ads out there, even though he doesn't. This doesn't bode well for Alter, but the confusion may worry both candidates in that the voters aren't all that aware that there is an election coming up.

Johnson may be hurt less by this confusion thanks to his focus on traditional door-to-door politic, but no politician likes to hear that the voters don't realize an election is around the corner.

This race has been described by some as a referendum on Gov. Blunt's policies, and it may well be. Alter has aligned himself in terms of policy with Blunt. Yet it may also play a larger part. as a thermometer for Republican v. Democrat policies in out-state areas. We will have to watch the final days and look at the returns before the tea leaves really begin to speak.

- Murphy

The Republican Party in Missouri has for decades touted itself as the party of fiscal responsibility. This has been a constant rhetoric in party-line arguments. You often hear it from those who support the Republican party as well.

The refrain is that the Republicans will let you keep your money and give you a smaller government. It makes for a good soundbite but, as is the case with most slogans, it doesn't exactly jive with reality. While most sales pitches include some fine print, these claims never do.

What the Republicans fail to explain is that there is an essential and intimate feedback loop between all sectors of the economy. It's a simple matter of supply and demand, and this is especially the case with government services. Often these are essential services provided to people of lesser means but can also include financial help to businesses. The basic idea behind both is that small investments now can lead to greater returns down the road. Often when it comes to social services, people factor in a moral or ethical obligation, which I agree with, but isn't essentially the best argument.

The Republicans in Missouri, however, have proven that short-sited political gain is more important than responsible fiscal governance. Their number one pledge is, "no new taxes," regardless of the nature of the situation. The Republican Majority leader in the U.S. House, Tom DeLay, once said there is no more important goal for a nation at war than to cut taxes. While no one wants to be taxed unnecessarily, revenue has to be collected in some form or another.

Instead Missouri Republican's first order of business has been to eliminate spending in areas they philosophically despise, despite reasonable and practical arguments for their continued existence. The most glaring example would be the recent vote in the Senate to cut medicare to almost 100,000 people in Missouri, mostly women and children with little in the way of financial resources. In other cuts the Republicans clearly demonstrated little care for the effect their actions would have. Governor Matt Blunt said that he was just trying to make changes to the program when he reduced First Steps funding to $0. He barely took the effort to create believable political cover. Blunt has since spent the past months trying to backpedal away from that decision.

The Senate President Pro Tem, Michael Gibbons (R-Kirkwood), acknowledged tonight on the Jaco Report that the individuals cut off form Medicare assistance in Missouri will most likely end up using emergency room services to meet their medical care needs. Gibbons argued that the cuts were not done out of malice towards the poor (which I can believe) but necessary in order to get Missouri's budget under control (which I don't believe). Gibbons said that raising taxes wasn't enough because the costs are increasing at an enormous rate; 1 billion every five years according to Gibbons.

Yet while on it surface that may sound like a reasonable argument it ignores the reality that people will have to get services somewhere and the most likely place will be local emergency rooms. All this does is move the burden of the costs from the state to private interests. In addition, cutting medicare will decrease the chance that people will receive preventative care, which means when they do arrive in already strapped emergency rooms they will be more expensive to treat. These cuts even affect areas like providing crutches and wheelchairs.

The medicare cuts will have an even greater impact because of the resulting loss in federal funds. Any cuts Missouri makes to medicare result in parallel cuts in federal aid. Thus hundreds of millions of dollars in additional cuts to the medicare program as a whole.

One of the driving forces behind the increased cost of medicare is not population growth, but rising health care costs. It costs more money to receive medical care than it did 10 years ago. Asking health care providers to take on the additional burden of tens of thousands of individuals who cannot pay for the services results in increased costs to the providers who must then pass on their increased costs to their paying customers, which includes the government of Missouri as well as its citizens.

As a result, instead of working with medical providers to find effective ways of reducing costs, they simply exacerbate the problem while claiming to be working for fiscal responsibility.

In order to achieve a few narrow-minded philosophical goals, no taxes and no social services, they have increased the price we will all be paying. There is no form of responsibility in modern Republicanism besides these two goals and the citizens of Missouri will bear the brunt of their hostility.

- Murphy

Representative Kenny Hulshoff (R-Columbia) has left open the possibility that he may co-sponsor a bill that would reverse House ethics rules changes made earlier this year. From The Hill's Tipsheet:

Republican rules
Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio) and Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.), the two Republican members removed by the GOP leadership from the House Standards of Official Conduct Committee along with former chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.), are declining to join Hefley in co-sponsoring a bill to repeal changes made earlier this year to House ethics rules. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and would reverse changes to ethics procedure that GOP leaders implemented in the rules package for the 109th Congress. LaTourette dismissed out of hand the possibility of co-sponsoring Mollohan's bill. But Hulshof said he would not sign onto the bill at this time, leaving open the possibility of future support. So far Hefley and Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) are the only Republican cosponsors. Rep. Rob Simmons, a fellow Republican centrist from Connecticut, said he will not sign on as a cosponsor, indicating that Mollohan has a way to go before attracting significant Republican support for his bill.

Hulshoff and LaTourette were removed from the House ethics committee because they stood up to Republican Majority Leader, Tom Delay (R-Texas). The ethics committee reprimanded DeLay three times last year for ethics violations. The move was seen by most as a blatant attempt to wrangle in the ethics committee and punish Republican members who would seek to question DeLays numerous questionable tactics.

It was announced a few days ago that DeLay is yet again being investigated for possible ethics violations involving overseas junkets to South Korea.

- Murphy

Can't get anough of bracket spots and arguing over who is the valid number one seed? Well, these St. Charles Republicans are running their own March Madness contest, but instead of trying to figure out who is going to upset Illinois, they are trying to see who thinks McCain is going to make it into the Republican Final Four.

Via: Arch City Chronicle.

- Murphy

Today legislators in the Missouri Senate are voting on the future of Medicaid. It's quite likely that the Republican controlled Senate will vote to cut Medicaid, ending the program by 2008. Senate President Pro Tem Michael Gibbons, R-Kirkwood, had this to say: "This system (Medicaid) is on the way out and a brighter day is coming."

For all those who want to thank the Senators for providing them with a bright future, I think I'll post the role call on the vote later today.

The Post-Dispatch reported in an editorial today that two Republicans have already decided to vote against cutting Medicaid, Sens. Kevin Engler of Farmington and Robert Mayer of Dexter. Perhaps by the end of the day we'll see some more of this.

Update: I can't pull up a list of who voted which way, but I encourage anyone who is interested to look up there Senator and ask them how they voted.

This vote will illustrate much more clearly a legislator's take on moral positions than any public statements of religiously inspired guidance.

- Murphy

Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) condoned torture in the pursuit of information.

But a Republican panel member, Senator Jim Talent of Missouri, signaled that, as far as he is concerned, little if any blame rests on American shoulders. "If our guys want to poke somebody in the chest to get the name of a bomb maker so they can save the lives of Americans, I'm for it," Mr. Talent said. "If the Department of Defense wants to investigate me for that, and have 15 investigations and call me inhumane, fine."

The Senator from Missouri seems not to understand the nature and purpose not only of the Geneva Conventions on torture, but also the necessity of investigating violations of the conventions.

As many in the military have already said, the conventions work both ways. Not only does it enforce humane treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, but it also helps protect any U.S. soldiers who happen to become prisoners of war. Now, just because an enemy such as Saddam may not follow such rules (the tapes of American POW's in the first Gulf War show clear evidence of abuse, as do those who fall into the grasp of the guerilla fighters currently in Iraq) that does not give the U.S.the right to also abandon any such standards of decency. It should be pretty obvious that arguing the contrary may lead to equating the moral standing of the Iraqi terrorists and the U.S. military, obviously a bad position, as well as an incorrect position, to hold.

The law branch of the military, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) corps, has loudly criticized not only the use of such practices, but also denouced the administration's efforts to loosen the regulations regarding the use of torture for interrogation. The most famous of these were findings written by Alberto Gozales when he served as Counsel for President George W. Bush. Gozalez now serves as the Attorney General of the United States.

In addition, the purpose of vigorously investigating and prosecuting violations of the convention has a great deal to do with the public perception of the United States. Despite attempts by some to ignore the moral position of the U.S. in the world, the U.S. must maintain strict standards on itself if it expects other nations to follow suit. The President can not determine that the use of torture is allowable and then denounce other nations for their use of similar techniques. Much of the argument against this criticism is that we do not use the same methods as those we condemn. This is of course the quintessential slippery slope. Once you start down the road, you have to admit you are using torture, you can't hide behind terminology.

The prosecution has to be vigorous because as a nation of laws, not of men, the U.S. must constantly demonstrate that no one is above the rule of the law. This is perhaps best codified in the right to impeach a sitting President.

If we are to hold ourselves up, rightly I believe, as a model for other nations we have to stick to the highest ethical, moral and legal standards. Holding ourselves above the rules for short-term political convenience will have disastrous long-term consequences.

Perhaps Sen. Talent and the President's staff will reconsider their position on the rule of law before our own citizens or soldiers have to face the consequences.

- Murphy

If Archbishop Burke's purpose was to weigh into politics by using the weight of the Archdiocese, he has certainly achieved his goal. From today's Post-Dispatch:

250 attend Mass backing Burke in St. Stanislaus Kostka fight
By Aisha Sultan
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/13/2005
Both sides deadlocked in the St. Stanislaus Kostka Catholic Church dispute seem to be engaged in a back-and-forth volley of Masses, marches and support rallies.

About 250 worshippers attended a "solidarity" Mass Sunday at St. John the Apostle and Evangelist Church downtown to show support for Archbishop Raymond Burke and his efforts to wrest control of the church's governance from a lay board of directors.

The previous Sunday, those supporting the board of directors' efforts to keep the church independent held a prayer vigil and march from the Cathedral Basilica to the Archdiocese chancery. Richard Bach, a spokesman for parishioners opposed to Burke's claims, said about 300 people participated.

While it may be that Burke is simply trying to reestablish the primacy of the Church in Catholic's lives, he may have simply sparked greater local solidarity and outspokenness among those Catholics who believe in Catholicism, but may have not been as active in the Church. There have been many more lapsed Catholics coming out to show their support for those they believe are getting the short end of the scepter.

This goes beyond the St. Stanislaus issue into the role of the Catholic Church in governance (Burke's statement that Pro-Choice Catholic politicians should be denied communion) and the recent decision to close several parishes in the city.

Burke may have purposely sparked a resurgence of activity in the Catholic community of St. Louis, but they may not be heading in the more conservative direction he would seem to prefer.

- Murphy